CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 février 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 9 March 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 24925/25 RBB LAB S.R.L. against San Marino lodged on 1 August 2025 communicated on 18 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns administrative proceedings lodged by the applicant company (a first level start-up). The latter had been given authorisation to act as a block chain entity (having thus certain fiscal advantages) and later to emit tokens (for sale) until the end of 2022. Bearing in mind, inter alia , criminal proceedings pending against the director of the applicant company (concerning misuse of funds) and a notification from the Financial Intelligence Unit, and the resulting reputational risks for San Marino, the renewal of the authorisation was refused on 5 May 2023 by the relevant administrative authority (“SMI”). The applicant company brought administrative proceedings by an application challenging the SMI decision and asked for its “annulment”. In the meantime, the criminal proceedings against the director were discontinued, thus, on 8   December 2023, the applicant company asked SMI to “revoke” the impugned decision. Considering that their silence amounted to a refusal, on 22 December the applicant company lodged a further application asking the administrative courts to annul what it considered to be a silent refusal given the expiry of fifteen days. Pending the administrative proceedings, on 8   February 2024, SMI rejected the request for revocation, inviting the applicant to make a new request for authorisation. By a judgment of 11 October 2024, having joined all the applications, the court of first instance considered that it could not take cognisance ( improcedibilie ) of the first application for annulment given the lack of interest and the incompatibility of such a request once a subsequent request for revocation was made. As to the second application, even assuming it could be considered that there was a denial of the request for revocation within the fifteen days established by law, the revocation of the impugned decision could not bring anything concrete to the applicant company, who should have rather lodged a new request for authorisation, it thus had no legal interest in that application. By a judgment of 2 April 2025, the Court of Appeal confirmed the first instance judgment and its reasoning, noting further that the only challenge the applicant company could lodge was against the decision of 8 February 2024, but no such challenge had been lodged. In any event such challenge, even if upheld, could only revoke the refusal of authorisation, but not grant authorisation, thus it would, in any event, not have affected the applicant company. That decision had become final, thus confirming the lack of interest to obtain the annulment of the refusal of authorisation of 5 May 2023. It further noted that the applicant company had in any event benefitted of other fiscal advantages in 2023, and there appeared to be no financial or reputational damage. Relying on Article 6 § 1 the applicant complains of the fairness of the proceedings before SMI which ultimately impacted the proceedings before the administrative courts. It further complains under Article 6 § 1 alone and under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 that it had no effective remedy, with reference to the outcome of the administrative proceedings and its formalistic and contradictory reasoning which denied it an assessment on the merits. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the Court’s case-law considering Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as a lex specialis in relation to Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example, Curmi v. Malta , no. 2243/10, § 58, 22 November 2011), did the applicant company have effective access to a court for the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has there been a restrictive application of the law by the administrative courts impairing the applicant’s right of access to court (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 96-99, 5 April 2018; Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 86, 29   November 2016; and Beneficio Cappella Paolini v. San Marino , no.   40786/98, § 29, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)) ?